Librarian
Policies to Promote Equitable Peer Review
Explore different models of peer review: Anonymous, double anonymous, and open peer review have advantages and disadvantages in term of equity and efficacy. But providing authors choice and flexibility in term of the type of review they are comfortable with can go a long way toward ensuring a constructive and positive review process. Open review, when carefully implemented, can help to reframe peer review as a collaborative, mentoring relationship between author and reviewer in which each participant is working together to produce the best submission possible.
| Type | Description | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anonymous | The reviewer's identity is not disclosed to the author, but the reviewer knows the author's identity. | The reviewer can offer critique without fear, and can consider the article in the larger context of the author's work. | Personal knowledge of the author may bias the reviewer. |
| Double Anonymous | The authors' identity is not disclosed to the reviewer, and the reviewer's identity is not disclosed to the author. | The reviewer can offer critique without fear, and the potential for bias may be diminished. | Reviewer may discover the author's identity anyway. |
| Open Peer Review | The identities of the both the reviewer and author are disclosed. | Review process is more transparent. Reviewers are motivated since their names appear with the published article. | Reviewers may be reluctant to attach their name to a negative review. |
For a detailed breakdown of current and emerging approaches to peer review see Tennant JP, Dugan JM, Graziotin D et al. "A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review."
Encourage authors to suggest potential reviewers of their work: The Association of University Presses notes that an author’s suggestions may alert journal editors “to other experts in the field or signal an author’s conception of their ideal reader” (Best Practices for Peer Review of Scholarly Books). More importantly, encouraging scholars from under-represented groups to suggest their own reviewers and also to indicate anyone who should not be asked to review their work can help to ensure that these scholars receive a collaborative and unbiased evaluation of their submission.